Re: Get rid of .git/branches/ and .git/remotes/?

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Nov 20, 2005, 19:50 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511202039340.23586@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511200935081.13959@g5.osdl.org>

Hi,

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 	[branches.origin]
> 		url = master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git
> 		pull = master:origin
> 
> 	[branches.mine]
> 		url = my.domain.com:/other/repo
> 		pull = master:mine

I like this approach best. In fact, that was my idea on how to go about implementing that feature.

However,

Show 7 quoted lines

> 	[branches.origin]
> 		url = master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git
> 		pull = master:origin
> 
> 	    [.mine]
> 		url = my.domain.com:/other/repo
> 		pull = master:mine

I don't like this. Usually, data in ini files is not dependent on its position in the file, with the notable exception of section names. I never ran across nested sections (probably for all the reasons XML is unreadable). And the sections should be exchangable, just for clarities sake.

Show 5 quoted lines

> And I'm not 100% convinced that putting these branches in the config file 
> has any real advantages over keeping them as separate files. Having 
> everything in one place is nice, of course, and being able to copy just 
> one file around might be convenient, but it _does_ make the config file 
> more complicated.

And it _does_ make finding the information for less savvy git users more easy.

I'm not 100% convinced, either, but it could be a better concept than different files in different places and different formats basically doing the same.

But my thinking went like this: if Pasky and Junio can not agree on one location and format, and therefore none of the two is deprecated, how about giving them a way out they both might be able to agree to?

Ciao, Dscho

P.S.: Anybody noticed that I did not use 0xb4 in five days?